|
Quote:
"Excuse me, is that an Uzi?" - Air America Lee, All correct, so we can say I was merely completing your thought! I guess we'll never know, but the E-100 was not the insanity that the Maus turned into. An alternative-history scenario that probaly features the Maus and E-100 is the upcoming wargame "Nuklear Winter '68". Forty years after the Third Reich was atom-bombed into a radioactive wasteland that is then sealed-off, a rebuilt Werhmacht emerges from a vast underground Reich, and boy are they pissed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0gGavTYhjM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZtYJkDP0i8 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZbaZvHgKus Sorry, I can't remember if I've posted these before, I seem to think I have so please accept my apologies if this is the case! Tony |
heh, the Maus would have been a plaything compared to this
http://www.panzerbaer.de/workshop/wdieb_mod_87-a.htm http://www.achtungpanzer.com/p-10001500-pzkpfw-ixx.htm |
With me, I'm fascinated at how tanks were developed, used, and misused. Some of the sidelines, like the Russian flying tank are always good for a chuckle. Others, like the Italian and Japanese WWII tanks are always good for a moment of silence for the bravery of their crews, going into combat with such utter pieces of garbage.
And then you have the Russians, and the post war designs...the people who terrifed the Nazis with the T-34 and KV-1, also developed the T-54 and T-55 and the T-62. The basic T-54 has the driver positioned on the left side of the hull, to his right is the main fuel cell, to save space, a ammo rack holding 30 rounds of 100mm ammo is built into the rear side of the fuel cell. The turret has the gunner and tank commander positioned on the left side of the turret, in seats suspended from the turret ring. The loader stands on a small platform suspended from the turret ring (that's right, the T-54/55 series does not have a turret basket!). He has four rounds of ready ammo for the main gun. Once the ready ammo is expended, the loader has to step off his platform and get a shell from the hull rack. Lots of fun to do while moving cross-country, rotating the turret to track targets and trying to avoid stepping on empty shell casings. Right? What does this mean? If you want to blow the T-54 up, you load a APDSDU round, and aim at the headlight, located on the right front side of the hull. You will get penetration of the front glacis plate, and then enjoy a fuel/ammo explosion! If you want to disable the tank, switch your aim to the left front and your round will kill the driver, gunner and tank commander. If you get a flank shot, aim inbetween the last set of roadwheels and use a HEAT round, this will penetrate the hull and start an engine fire. The difference inbetween a T-54 and a T-55...is located on the muzzle end of the gun, the T-54 has a smooth gun tube, the T-55 has a bore evacurater. This is the simple way to tell them apart, otherwise you have to measure how thick the hatches are, because some T-55s have a plain tube and radiation shelding. But being a simple grunt and not some Intell weenie.... The T-62 was a major improvement over the T-55, it had a full turret basket, but otherwise had all of the same faults of the T-55. With one new one. If you look at a picture of the rear of a T-62 turret, you will notice a small hatch. This is why an engineer should never be allowed to tinker with a tank, without a tanker sitting behind the engineer, holding a sledge hammer ready to hit the stupid engineer. You see, the T-62 automatically ejects its spent main gun ammo casings. To the rear, and to avoid dropping them on the rear deck, the casings are ejected about 20 meters or so to the rear. Now, if you are a infantryman, using the tank for cover, you have to worry about a 10kg chunk of steel being thrown back at you, everytime the tank fires its cannon. If you are the tank crew, the auto-ejector has one design flaw. It vibrates. Loose. If the loader doesn't pay attention, the auto-ejector will grab the casing and throw it at the door, and if it has vibrated loose, it will bounce the casing off the inside edge of the door, throwing the case back into the turret. The tank commander has a shield to protect him from the movement of the breech of the cannon, which also protects him from the shell casing...the gunner has a leather padded helmet to protect his head. Yup! You guessed it, the casing is often thrown right into the back of the gunner! |
In our ongoing look at Russian post war armor...we have the T-64/T-72
Faced with the new M-1/Challenger/Leopard 2 designs, the Soviets came up with these new designs. Fitted with the new 125mm cannon, fitted with an autoloader, the Soviets felt that these two designs would be superior to the new Western designs. To this date, only the T-72 has fought against the M-1 and Challenger and the results were shocking. The new 125mm cannon was unable to penetrate the Chobham/Special Armor Plate of the Western designs frontal arcs. And even more shocking, the T-72 proved to be highly vulnerable to the newly developed APDSDU round. This was due to two design flaws. First, Soviet tanks are considerable smaller than Western designs, this smaller size allows them to add thicker armor over a smaller area, it also means that any penetrating hit has a much greater chance of causing severe damage. Second, the T-72's small size and its use of an autoloader meant that the ammunition was placed below the main gun in the turret and took the form of a tray, holding the shells and powder charges of the 125mm gun (a conventional round could not be used due to the small size of the turret and the length of such a round). US and British tankers quickly discovered that aiming at the base of the turret, below the main gun, gave them the best chance of penetration AND allowed them to place a APDSDU right in the ole ammo rack. Desert Storm has hundreds of photos of T-72s, with their turrets blown off due to this tactic. The BMP-1, when it was introduced was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. As ground-breaking as this vehicle was, it has some major design flaws. The squad leader on a Bimp has his own hatch, complete with a fixed IR searchlight, and herein lies the first problem. When traversing the turret over the left front, in order to avoid knocking out the IR searchlight, an interruptor was added that causes the main armament to elevate up and over. If the gunner is tracking a tank with the standard Sagger ATGM, the missile just went ballistic and would miss its target, the 73mm main gun is currently pointing at the sky and that NATO tanker now has the chance to place a 120mm HEAT round were it would do the most good.. Even the BMP-2 has the same drawback. |
Quote:
Quote:
Let's not forget that the infantry in the BMP sat on the main fuel tank and the rear doors contained the secondary fuel tanks. Or that the 73mm gun sometimes tried to ram the loader's arm into the breech. |
It's still sad that T-72s could be penetrated so easily and at such a long range. The longest range T-72 kill on record was at 4,500 meters by a M-1A1 of the 2nd ACR. Longest range kill on an Iraqi T-55 was at 5,200 by an M-1A1 from the 1st Armored Division. It's even more amazing because both kills were done with APDSDU rounds.
For the non-tankers, APDS is a high velocity, low-trajectory round that normally bleeds off speed fairly rapidly. Our gunner's manuals stated that it was not to be used beyond 2,500 meters due to uncertain penetration. The perferred long-range antitank round is the HEAT, which is a medium velocity, high-trajectory round. Do to this, the lead-off is so great that it was expected to have to fire 2-3 HEAT rounds in order to score a hit. As you can see, the performance of the APDSDU was a pleasant surprise for the Allies. Didn't forget that the Bimp has a chance of loading the gunner's left arm, although this was always more of a chance thing, in that the round has to grab the gunner's coveralls. Besides, if you maneuvered to the left front and nailed the Bimp with a HEAT, who have a better chance of catching the main gun ammo racks. Call me old fashioned, but I like ammo explosions, you get to see the pretty fireworks!!! :p |
Quote:
|
Sorry about that one.
|
Tis okay Paul, I certainly don't take offense.
I've had to attend too many funerals of too many buddies, killed through their own mistakes, or through the stupidity of others. The problem with armor, is that the fatal mistakes tend to be pretty severe. I guess that's were my smart-ass atitude comes from, you have to laugh about, otherwise you spend too much time, assisting Jack Daniel's profit margin. |
This one was during Desert Storm. I botched my Dragon shot, hit it near one of the right front roadwheels, but it slewed around and gave an AT-4 gunner in 2nd squad a nice rear-quarter shot. Thing went up like a roman candle, after a slight delay. Sometimes I still see those Iraqis frying inside (even though I never actually saw them).
|
Worst one that I ever saw was a stupid accident on a gunnery range. A
M-48A5 of the Texas National Guard was shooting night machinegun. The turret stabilizer system chose that moment to go balls up and started spinning the turret and the damned gunner didn't let go of the triggers until after he sprayed the bleachers with the better part of 200+ rounds. Wound up killing three men and injuring another seven. Training Accidents are such a damn stupid way of losing good men. |
Quote:
Not that it matters much, but someone local bought a surplus T-54 from the Czechs. They keep it in a museum on a decommissioned base (the former CFB Chilliwack). Year before last I was out there and got to ride in the commander's hatch with a full family riding on the back, sides and front, tank desant-style. From what I recall, the gunner and TC were located on either side of the gun, but yeah, there was no turret basket. Brandon, I think one of the main concepts for the BMP/BMD was a vehicle that could allow infantry to fight buttoned-up on a nuclear battlefield. Not so good on the non-nuclear battlefield! Original tactical doctrine was to have the vehicle leading out front, followed by the infantry... after the Yom Kippur war this doctrine was reversed, so obviously a few kinks needed to be ironed out. Tony |
I can't remember where I read this... but there was a 'training accident' were target computers were off, and weapons ended up killing a bunch of soldiers during a wargame. Just like i had read were two ships ran into each other due to a computer glitch that told the ships they were at a safe distance and they ended up scrapping paint when the quartermasters pulled back at the last minute and pulled out of the head on collision.
|
Nate,
Such disasters pre-date the modern computerised era, of course! In 1893 two British pre-Dreadnaught battleships (HMS Camperdown and HMS Victoria) collided while on exercises and sank. It's a somewhat complicated story but it boils down to how a reputedly brilliant admiral planned a showy maneuver, and no one questioned his calculations either through blind faith or a rigid adherence to orders: http://ahoy.tk-jk.net/macslog/Stupid...ndthenAdm.html Not exactly a "stupid GI" trick! Tony |
Quote:
|
when the Field Artillery started using computers, some of the firing errors would shock you.
I was doing a FTX once and we got to actually call in artillery. Now, I've never had problems figuring out where I am on a map, and on previous exercises I was always able to get the round on target with only 2-3 adjustments. Got into an arguement with out FO, who swore that our positions was five clicks from where I said we were. Needless to say, the ole E-5 got out voted by the 1st Lieutenant. And we used his grid coordinates to call for fire. As he was completing his fire mission, I had dismounted from his M-113 and stepped into an old foxhole, and was pulling on my kevlar. About the time our Lieutenant finished saying "Get your ass back on the track now Sergeant!" We heard the whistle of incoming artillery. The spotting round struck less than 40 meters from our track. As you can imagine, the FO was back on the radio screaming "CHECK FIRE! CHECK FIRE!" And I sat in the foxhole, grinning at the Lieutenant....:D |
Quote:
The gunner/tank commander are on the left side on the Soviet tanks all the way through the T-62 series. The T-64/T-72 are the first ones with the two seated on either side of the gun. There was a running joke about the Russians cornering the market on short (5'5"), left-handed loaders! Here's a tidbit on the BTR-60 and BTR-70 series of APCs...there are two main defects on this vehicle....the fact that it uses two bus engines as a power plant, always led to maintenance problems, although you can turn off one power plant and still have half-speed...and that the armor plate beind the first two roadwheels can be penetrated by 7.62mm AP ammo... |
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbour...ager_collision Two Royal Commissions were held into the incident (the only time two Royal Commissions have ever been held into the same incident) with the second focussing on allegations that the captain of the Voyager may have been unfit for command (apparently he was an alcoholic). Given the modest size of the Australian Defence Force (both then and now) we really couldn't afford to lose a destroyer that way. Now we'll probably never again see an Australian aircraft carrier sinking an Australian destroyer because we now longer have an aircraft carrier. But that's fine because our best buddies the USA has more than enough aircraft carrier to go around :D |
Speaking of T-72s, they've even been killed by Bradleys with 25-mm AP rounds. In both DESERT STORM and OIF-1. Several OIF kills from 3rd ID took place at less than 250 meters, and they were taking flank shots. I remember seeing Walt Rogers of CNN talking about a fight between 3-7 Cav and some T-72s, and the T-72s had been killed by Bradleys-and by 25-mm. Only one who tried to flee ate a TOW, the rest....
|
Quote:
Well, it didn't seem like that was the layout to me, but some written material does seem to conform to what you say so I could be wrong! Tell you what, next time I'm out in the 'Wack (CFB Chiliwack) and the museum is open I'll have a look inside the turret if I can. Then we'll see who's sorry then! Eh? Eh! :p (Probably, I'll still be sorry.) Tony |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The turret is removed and some superstructure added for the training version? This tank had a turret and I rode in it, although I can't say if superstructure was added. :cool: http://i209.photobucket.com/albums/b...Capture1-1.jpg -The tank, although not me in the turret. http://www.cmedcentre.ca/# The owner said he had a choice between a T-54 and an M48A3 Patton and decided on the former due to cost concerns and parts availability. Also, the steel tracks were replaced by rubber-shod Centurion. He was specific (and proud) of his baby and spent time talking about engine rebuilds and the boxes on the turret sides and pretty much everything, it's difficult to see it was originally a training tank not coming up. A little off-topic, here are some pictures of Cuban variants on the BTR-60, including the middle one with a modified T-54 turret. Bottom left has a BTR-1 turret. All could make an appearance in the Twilight war! http://i42.tinypic.com/34pz9lw.jpg http://i43.tinypic.com/b3lfvc.jpg http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums...-Fortress-Cuba Tony |
There have been several posts about favorite German weapons...here are a couple that didn't make the fav list...
The MG35/36. This was a Swedish design that was sold to the German firm of Knorr-Bremse. KB was a automotive supply company that specialized in car brakes. Looking to score a nice defense contract, KB offered the MG35/36 to the expanding Wehrmacht. Das Heer was not impressed by the design and turned the weapon down. KB however, sold a few thousand to the Waffen SS, who used it as a training weapon until enough MG34/MG42 were available to replace it, and then issued the MG35/36 to the various SS Foreign Legions which were, by then, fighting in Russia. The Knorr-Bremse MG35/36 has two major problems; first was the safety catch. If it was carelessly applied it would hold the bolt 3/4 open (cocked without the sear being engaged). If the user then snapped a magazine into place and released the safety catch, the weapon would release the bolt, chamber a round and discharge....The second problem had to do with how the stock was attached to the receiver. The attachment point was too weak to withstand the vibration of firing and the butt had a tendency to come loose and fall off the gun, a bit upsetting to the user, to say the least. The second machinegun is an oddity in the weapons race, it has been produced in virtually the same form for over 50 years and has served in every war from the Russo-Japanese to Vietnam, and yet has never been officially adopted in quantity by any major power. It is a Danish design and is named after the Danish Minister of War who was particulary enthusiatic about the weapon. The Madsen machine gun was the Norwegian Army's light machine gun in 1940 and saw service against the Germans during the invasion. It was also used by the militarys of Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, and Poland, and many of them found there way into German service. The Madsen action is based on the recoil of the barrel, which moves a pivoting breechblock. Since the block is working on a vertical arc, a separate rammer is needed to load the next round and a separate extractor is needed to remove the spent casing. It's a complex mechanism, prone to frequent jams. The major innovation that the Madsen is known for is the top-mounted curved magazine, widely copied after its introduction on this weapon. Since the Germans were using captured Madsens, some bright engineer realized that the Heer used metal link belts, and to ease ammunition supply, designed an ingenious conversion kit that allowed the use of the standard box magazine as well as the standard German Army machine gun belt. Please remember that with the complxity of the Madsen's mechanism...this is the technical equivalent of operating two elevators in the same shaft. :rolleyes: |
Quote:
The position on the right side of the turret is the loaders. |
Quote:
I'm guessing the apparent lack of ensuring the safety of its members is a reason for such a high rate of US military training deaths?!? |
Sounds like it doesn't it....
The amount of safety staff and checking that's carried out on the range here in Australia makes events like that effectively impossible. |
Quote:
As for the training accidents, the us military does seem to have a lot of them. And most of them are sheer stupid human error. |
Quote:
Well, there you go. The tank was licence-built by the Czechs, and the tracks were from a Centurion. I don't know if he had problems with them or not! Tony |
There is a story that floats around about the difference in quaility control between made-in-the-USSR and those copies made in Poland/Czech Republic.
When the first T-54s were sold to the Warsaw Pact, the engines were blowing at fairly short intervals. The story goes that a Polish engineer, ordered to fix the problem, took apart several of the Soviet-made engines, and discovered, about 15kgs or so of metal grit, burrs, and other debris in the engines. It was reported in some engines, that it looked like the Soviet factory workers drilled holes into the metal, and instead of sweeping the debris away, simply pushed it into the interior of the engine, some of the oil lines were so blocked with debris, that oil could not flow. |
Quote:
Ha, the guy told me the same story, literally! Not surprising, I guess. Tony |
I've heard similar on Soviet ATGMs -- story being that after the Wall came down US technical intelligence guys got their hands on a lot of them care of the former DDR. Test firing them yielded a surprisingly high dud and misfire rate, owing to apparently very low end quality control.
|
Quote:
I heard the same thing as well for US-supplied M72 LAW rockets that had been stored in Egypt for over a decade. The warheads and fuses were fine but the rocket motors misfired at a high rate. Not to say the Soviet-built weapons weren't rubbish, but apparently rocket motors have a very high failure rate over time due to chemical processes. Tony |
Strangely, I used to date a girl years ago whose mother owned a company that made pretty good money doing surveillance on warehoused rockets and missiles, mostly (from what I gathered) watching for signs that the fuels were decaying or leaking. Apparently a pretty involved process.
|
Face it, the only decent anti-tank weapon that the Soviets had was the RPG7...and it still had a high misfire rate...not to mention, since it was fin-stabilized, that cross-winds played holy havoc with accuracy!
In spite of the stated effective range and the fancy sight, most RPG users just use the iron sights and don't fire at anything more than 250 meters. |
Back in 1895, the US Army made the decision to retire its collection of Colt and Smith & Wesson .45 revolvers, most of these weapons dated back to 1873 and there was a lot of intrest in the new smokeless powder cartridges. So Colt sold the Army on what became the M1895 .38-caliber revolver. It was a smaller caliber, it was double-action and it was easier to shoot than the old thumb-buster single action revolvers. Looked like a great weapon.
Until the Spanish American War. In the aftermath of the SAW, the US came into possession of the Phillippine Islands, and soon found themselves involved in putting down the local resistance. It was quickly discovered that the .38-caliber round just didn't have the same knock-down effect as the old .45 and the US Army scrambled to refurbish and reissue as many of the "old" revolvers as possible. It also spurred Colt to develop the M-1911 pistol, one of the longest serving, and most reliable, hard-hitting weapons of the 20th Century. Even though the M1895 emerged with its reputation in tatters, it did see a second chance during World War One, when cases of the pistol were brought out of storage and issued as training weapons for the Doughboys. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Anyway, the Moro story is primarily myth -- at least the idea that the 1911 fixed the problem. There were lethality complaints concerning 30-40 Krag rounds as well, and if a full power rifle round couldn't get the job done no handgun round could. The 1911 is a great design (I carry one as a duty sidearm), but the Philippine Insurrection stories are enshrined legends rather than reality. |
Quote:
The reason I added the M1895 pistol, is it failed the acid test of combat. In contrast, the M1894 Krag-Jorgensen was noted for several deficiencies that led to its replacement by the Mauser-based M-1903 Springfield rifle. But it was never considered to be a failed design. I certainly don't consider myself to be the guru of military weapons, the weapons that I have added to the list are based on my research and are my personal opinion. I stand by my opinion of the Colt M1895 Revolver. |
Time for another really bad idea for a weapon.
In the late 1950s the Army, in its infinite wisdom, decided to field the the M-28 and M-29 Davy Crockett. The M-28 (120mm caliber, max range of 2,000m) and M-29 (155mm caliber, max range of 4,000m) fired the M-388 round, a modified version of the W54 nuclear warhead. This particular warhead weighs in at 23kg and had a selectible yield of 0.01KT up to 0.02KT (just about the smallest possible fission warhead). On the minimum setting, this was about twice the size of the bomb used in the Oklahoma City bombing of 1995. The problem with the Davy Crockett lies in its intended usage. It was to be deployed along the border, prior to the Soviets lauching their great drive to throw NATO into the Atlantic. The theory is that the Davy Crocketts would launch their bombs and lay a belt of intense radiation (in excess of 10,000rem) that would last for 48 hours, buying NATO time to deploy forward and defeat the Soviets. Hmmmm, a short range, very dirty nuclear warhead with a promise of being non-lethal within 48 hours....nope can't see a problem! :rolleyes: |
I'm going to post this picture as soon as I get my scanner back up and running.
The source is US Infantry Weapons of the First World War by Bruce Canfield... It is an experimental combination sword and pistol made from a M1913 saber blade with a handle containing a M1911 .45 caliber pistol and a sliding shoulder stock. This unusual, one-of-a-kind prototype weapon was carried in a M1913 saber scabbard. Reportedly fabricated at the Springfield Armory. Since it may be a bit before I get to a scanner....the M1913 saber is the one designed by George Patton, a long, tapering blade, used only for the thrust. It has a bell handguard and the pistol is welded to the top of the handguard, which has seven bars welded and running back and ending in a ring, protecting the hand while it holds the pistol. You basically have the choice of shooting your target as you gallop towards it and then sticking it as you ride past. THANK GAWD only one was ever produced!!!!! |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:05 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.